UBS: ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ better understands Jobs than Isaacson bio; ‘Tim Cook has been the right choice’

“UBS‘s Steve Milunovich today weighs in on the recently released biography of Apple’s late co-founder, chairman and CEO, Steve Jobs, Becoming Steve Jobs: The Evolution of a Reckless Upstart Into a Visionary Leader, by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli, and finds that it ‘better covers and understands Jobs’ work’ than did the prior biography, by Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs,” Tiernan Ray reports for Barron’s.

“Milunovich finds lessons for Apple investors,” Ray reports. “Among the insights he glans are that ‘Tim Cook has been the right choice,’ for CEO.”

“Second, Milunovich concludes that Jobs’s genius for the consumer put the company in a position to capitalize on consumer tech for years to come,” Ray reports. “Specifically, Apple has room to move into the Internet of Things, more broadly, such as home automation… Milunovich also thinks Apple’s forthcoming corporate headquarters building, a donut-shaped colossus sometimes referred to as a spaceship, was not a sign of peaking, but of Jobs’s legacy.”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Correct on all counts.

Related articles:
Ken Segall: ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ is a better portrait of Steve as a complete human being – March 27, 2015
Why Apple feels the need to defend Steve Jobs – March 27, 2015
Tim Bajarin: ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ the most accurate portrayal written to date – March 27, 2015
Apple execs, including Tim Cook, praise new Steve Jobs biography, and criticize an old one – March 23, 2015
Disney CEO Bob Iger kept Steve Jobs’s cancer a secret for three years – March 20, 2015
The evolution of Steve Jobs: It’s time to revisit — and correct — the myth – March 20, 2015
Apple CEO Cook blasts Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ bio as a ‘just a rehash; a tremendous disservice’ – March 17, 2015
Steve Jobs: ‘I just don’t like television. Apple will never make a TV again’ – March 13, 2015
Tim Cook reportedly offered Steve Jobs his liver, but Jobs refused – March 12, 2015
Gruber: ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ is a remarkable new book – March 3, 2015


  1. Tim Cook has done an effective job so far as CEO. However, he has a fatal flaw. He does not understand that the company is not his personal megaphone for broadcasting his very juvenile political beliefs, which are like those of someone who only thinks about politics while watching Comedy Central or with NPR serving as background noise during the morning commute. Tim Cook is right now driving a huge wedge between Apple and a very significant part of its customer based not just in the US but in countries around the world where people value the right to exercise religious freedom.

      1. “Treating people fairly” unless it’s in regard to their religious convictions, of course.

        In Tim Cook’s — and by extension, Apple’s (on behalf of which Cook claims to speak) — message on “diversity,” he mentions race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, veteran status, and disabilities.

        Interestingly, religion is excluded from Tim Cook’s (and Apple’s) “diversity” message.

      2. Tim Cook has not advocated for the rights of gays executed in Muslim countries. He has not criticized the Muslim religion at all for its use of execution against what it believes are sexual crimes.

        Tim Cook has done nothing to challenge the Chinese communist regime on the one child policy which kills young girls in the millions. China also uses slave labor.

        Finally, in the Indiana case Tim Cook is challenging a law originally promoted by Ted Kennedy which gave individuals access to the Court system to defend and protect their individual religious liberties against government interference. In this case, Cook and the radical homosexual lobby have decided that “their rights” include the involuntary servitude of individuals who are serious about their faith.

        1. Kent, I see you’re happy to use the phrase “radical homosexual agenda”. I’m curious if there’s anything in your book that isn’t “radical”. Is “please don’t beat me up” radical? Is “please serve me in your restaurant” radical? Is “please let me and my partner live in our own home in peace” radical?

          I’m really curious exactly where you draw the line.

          1. Involuntary servitude is radical in my book. I guess not in yours, which is why the country is now in trouble. When a private individual is told they are required to take part in a ceremony which their religious beliefs tell them is a sin, and they are threatened with the full force of the state including seizure of their home and their life savings if they don’t do what their religion tells them not to do, then that is radical. When doctors are told they must kill unborn children even though they have deeply held religious views that abortion is murdering a child, then the society that would force that doctor to do the opposite of what the Hippocratic oath teaches is a radical and even evil society.

          2. By the way “Mikey” how is the “homosexual agenda” doing in the Middle East? What is Tim Cook doing to promote human rights in Dubai and Saudi Arabia? Has he attacked the governments and politicians of these countries, who are doing far more harm to homosexuals (like executing them) than anything anyone in the US is doing.

    1. What are you talking about? Nowhere does Tim speak against religious freedom.

      Refusing to serve customers because you don’t agree with their beliefs is not religious freedom. If Christians were a minority in the US you would not hear an intolerant subset of them fighting of the right to be discriminated against.

      1. The Indiana law is designed specifically to protect the rights of individuals to live according their faith and to have access to the Courts in defending this right. The Indiana law was based on the Federal law which did this exact same thing in Federal courts. That law was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Shumer. They created the Federal version of the Indiana law. Tim Cook spoke out against the Indiana law protecting religious freedom. And he did this with a conscious mis-representation of the facts. His blatant lying in this case against a very large population of faith based individuals in the US and around the world will most definitely hurt Apple sales. Apple may prefer the leftist ideology, but most people do not. That is why the Left uses lies, crooked elections and judges who overturn popular initiatives to get their way.

      2. Exactly!
        There’s nothing in the logic of people who claim this is about “religious freedom” that wouldn’t ALSO allow them to exclude people by race, ethnicity, sex, or religion. In other words, their arguments would allow Jim Crow actions to be re-established.

        Think I’m wrong? There are STILL people today who use religion to say that people of different races/ethnicities should NOT interact in any way. If you think excluding people from a business using religion-based racism is unacceptable, please explain how excluding people using religion-based homophobia is OK.

        1. So you are saying the Ted Kennedy law on the US books signed by Bill Clinton is about establishing Jim Crow? Do you have any idea of anything? Do you even know what Jim Crow is? Please give me a very specific instance of Jim Crow being encouraged today by this law? Now, if you include a 70 baker who is forced against her will to take part in what is a “sin” according to her religion, with the penalty of having her home and savings all taken if she doesn’t, that is what you are advocating, not at all related to what this law does. So, give me your example.

          1. Talk about not knowing history – people used _religion_ as the excuse for the anti-miscegenation laws and actions by businesses. In other words, a storekeeper who was racist and believed that white and black people couldn’t marry each other would be able, under the Indiana law, to argue that they should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple.

            Also, name-dropping Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton doesn’t impress me. When they were right, they were right, when they were wrong, they were wrong. The federal RFRA they passed does not goes as horribly far as the Indiana law, but it still made it easier for people to discriminate. It was wrong when Bill & Ted did it, and it’s wrong now. (Damn it, now I’ve got an old movie reference stuck in my head – thanks for that. *grin*)

  2. That explains why Apple has such a hard-on for the new book, it goes into some greater detail about why Steve chose Tim as his successor (and the process for promoting from within).

  3. The selection of Tim Cook as successor was a brilliant move on Steve’s part, and overall I believe Tim has exceeded expectations.

    I do wish he would tread even *more* carefully around divisive issues like the religious liberties laws. His leading by example in renewable energy sources is a perfect example of doing things right. I regret his weighing in on the Indiana law.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.